Masterpiece or not?

[Nick1Ø66 4,713]

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Why so mean?

 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

26 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

To be blunt, people who don't like Interstellar lack the intellectual ability to understand its dense scientific concepts.

 

 

I really don't think that's it...

 

The film's science is the least of its problems.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, KK said:

I really don't think that's it...

 

The film's science is the least of its problems.

 

I don't understand why many people like the film. Such terms as "masterpiece" simply don't apply to this movie.

 

I guess the people who love the film lack the ability to see the obvious flaws of the narrative and characters "development".

[Brundlefly 2,385]

The only problem is that people think they have to fully understand a movie to enjoy it! Blade Runner 2049, my friends!

[crocodile 8,006]

The only real problem with the film that I can see is the delivery of material. Sometimes it can be a bit too stodgy and bland. I other words: too much expository dialogue. As far as general concept and everything else, it's pretty good.

 

Karol

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 minute ago, BloodBoal said:

I guess the people who love the film lack the ability to see the obvious flaws of the narrative and characters "development".

Visuals threaten the characters, that's partly true, but it only tends to be a problem, I would say.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Just now, BloodBoal said:

To think that the only reason people wouldn't like the film is because they "didn't understand it" is a pretty narrow-minded view.

 

It's hardly a complicated film. And so is Blade Runner 2049.

More people than you would believe don't like it for that reason.

 

Exactly, especially BD2049 is not really complicated and it doesn't really count either, since it's about everything else, but the plot.

[Ollie 1,059]

6 minutes ago, crocodile said:

The only real problem with the film that I can see is the delivery of material. Sometimes it can be a bit too stodgy and bland. I other words: too much expository dialogue. As far as general concept and everything else, it's pretty good.

 

Karol

 

As are most Nolan films, and that’s probably my main issue with him although I do enjoy some his works.

[crocodile 8,006]

2 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

 

As are most Nolan films, and that’s probably my main issue with him although I do enjoy some his works.

I like all his films. But the last 3 or 4 are not as smooth in terms of execution. But I'm stilling going along with it. Hey, at least guy has some sort of vision and his films look and feel like something. Rare enough (as far as blockbusters go anyway).

 

Karol

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,713]

7 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

To think that the only reason people wouldn't like the film is because they "didn't understand it" is a pretty narrow-minded view.

 

It's hardly a complicated film. And so is Blade Runner 2049.

 

Oh crikey I was just taking the piss. 

 

Is this Alex? What have you done with BloodBoal!!!!?

[KK 3,307]

11 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

To think that the only reason people wouldn't like the film is because they "didn't understand it" is a pretty narrow-minded view.

 

It's hardly a complicated film. And so is Blade Runner 2049.

 

This mass glorification of the film's supposed "intellectual prowess" was a problem with Inception too. Both films are not very difficult to "understand" at all.

 

Interstellar has parts that are quite good. The first act is near perfect for me. But you still leave the theatre dwelling on the burdensome exposition, the confounding third act and the shallow character arcs.

 

Its not a bad film. But masterpiece, it certainly is not.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[crocodile 8,006]

2 minutes ago, KK said:

 

This mass glorification of the film's supposed "intellectual prowess" was a problem with Inception too. Both films are not very difficult to "understand" at all.

 

Interstellar has parts that are quite brilliant. The first act is near perfect for me. But you still leave the theatre dwelling on the burdensome exposition, the confounding third act and some of the shallow character arcs.

 

Its not a bad film. But masterpiece, it certainly is not.

The bottom line is: Nolan's films are often clunky but at least try to go somewhere. You might not like stuff like Insterstellar or Dunkirk but at least there is something unique about them.

 

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,713]

2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Look what you have done. You have woken the dragon. I hope that you are proud of yourself.

 

[KK 3,307]

Right. I think interstellar came at a time when I was perhaps fatigued by the Nolan formula. Which is probably why his usual weaknesses were all the more glaring to me. I also think the larger the scale of his films, the clunkier they are, and the more his usual failings show.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

4 minutes ago, KK said:

 

This mass glorification of the film's supposed "intellectual prowess" was a problem with Inception too. Both films are not very difficult to "understand" at all.

 

Interstellar has parts that are quite good. The first act is near perfect for me. But you still leave the theatre dwelling on the burdensome exposition, the confounding third act and the shallow character arcs.

 

Its not a bad film. But masterpiece, it certainly is not.

 

It is always baffling to me that people think of Nolan's films as intellectual or whatnot. Inception was just dumb and Interstellar is disastrous in its absurdity. His films absolutely and utterly fail at replicating anything resembling true human experience.

[crocodile 8,006]

2 minutes ago, KK said:

Right. I think interstellar came at a time when I was perhaps fatigued by the Nolan formula. Which is probably why his usual weaknesses were all the more glaring to me. I also think the larger the scale of his films, the clunkier they are, and the more his usual failings show.

That is true. He was much more efficient with smaller budget. His films started to bloat The Dark Knight.

 

1 minute ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

It is always baffling to me that people think of Nolan's films as intellectual or whatnot. Inception was just dumb and Interstellar is disastrous in its absurdity. His films absolutely and utterly fail at replicating anything resembling true human experience.

I don't think that was the intention at all. I'm assuming here you're talking about dreaming.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

4 minutes ago, crocodile said:

You might not like stuff like Insterstellar or Dunkirk but at least there is something unique about them.

 

Karol

 

Hmmm. It's this keenness to make something "unique" that makes Dunkirk come off a little "gimmicky", for the lack of a better word.

 

For a film and subject matter that could have really broadened Nolan's horizons, it ended up being his most Nolan-ized film to date.

[Nick1Ø66 4,713]

 

7 minutes ago, KK said:

Right. I think interstellar came at a time when I was perhaps fatigued by the Nolan formula. Which is probably why his usual weaknesses were all the more glaring to me. I also think the larger the scale of his films, the clunkier they are, and the more his usual failings show.

 

I was of course joking about people who didn't like it not getting the science, but I nonetheless love the film, and it's my favourite Nolan movie. 

 

It's far from perfect, and some of its flaws (particularly in the final reel) become more evident on repeat viewings, but I adore the film's ambition. It captured my imagination and wonder from the start in a way most sci-fi films don't these days, and for that I love it. 

 

 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

2 minutes ago, crocodile said:

I don't think that was the intention at all. I'm assuming here you're talking about dreaming.

 

 

His dreams are the most sanitized, corporate dreams ever presented on screen. His dreams resembled that of IBM's Watson rather than any human dreams. They were also extremely reductive.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

4 minutes ago, KK said:

Right. I think interstellar came at a time when I was perhaps fatigued by the Nolan formula. Which is probably why his usual weaknesses were all the more glaring to me. I also think the larger the scale of his films, the clunkier they are, and the more his usual failings show.

I totally see what you mean. This happened to Tarantino as well, but not his larger films (Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained) are concerned - it's The H8ful Eight.

 

5 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

It is always baffling to me that people think of Nolan's films as intellectual or whatnot. Inception was just dumb and Interstellar is disastrous in its absurdity. His films absolutely and utterly fail at replicating anything resembling true human experience.

Not really. As well as Aliens, many Nolan films are "earthed" with their character conflicts.

[crocodile 8,006]

3 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

His dreams are the most sanitized, corporate dreams ever presented on screen. His dreams resembled that of IBM's Watson rather than any human dreams. They were also extremely reductive.

Again, it doesn't really matter. These are dreams constructed by someone on purpose for the subject to feel like they're real. Making them crazy and otherwordly wouldn't serve the concept at all. It's not what the film is about really.

 

7 minutes ago, KK said:

 

Hmmm. It's this keenness to make something "unique" that makes Dunkirk come off a little "gimmicky", for the lack of a better word.

 

For a film and subject matter that could have really broadened Nolan's horizons, it ended up being his most Nolan-ized film to date.

"Unique" as in a "it can be only Nolan's film". Unique to him,  if you will.

 

Karol

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Just now, crocodile said:

Again, it doesn't really matter. These are dreams constructed by someone on purpose for the subject to feel like they're real. Making them crazy and otherwordly wouldn't serve the concept at all. It's not what the film is about really.

 

Karol

 

It's about nothing. Just a plot which devolves into a race against the clock thing. Not very interesting for me at all. Especially when it takes half the film to set up in what is almost like a filmed manual to illustrate all these made up concepts.

[crocodile 8,006]

Just now, TheUlyssesian said:

 

It's about nothing. Just a plot which devolves into a race against the clock thing. Not very interesting for me at all. Especially when it takes half the film to set up in what is almost like a filmed manual to illustrate all these made up concepts.

That's a heist film genre. That's how all of them work. You either buy it or you don't, I guess.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

12 minutes ago, crocodile said:

That is true. He was much more efficient with smaller budget. His films started to bloat The Dark Knight.

 

From how he shoots his films, down to the way he writes, he's still very much an Indie filmmaker at heart. The thing is, that kind of temperament doesn't exactly work when you're tackling something with the thematic scope of Interstellar. With these kind of films, his arm is shorter than his reach.

 

To his credit though, few directors of his mainstream success and appeal are trying the things that he is.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

4 minutes ago, KK said:

Hmmm. It's this keenness to make something "unique" that makes Dunkirk come off a little "gimmicky", for the lack of a better word.

 

For a film and subject matter that could have really broadened Nolan's horizons, it ended up being his most Nolan-ized film to date.

 

Week-End A Zuydcoote is better!

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

2 minutes ago, crocodile said:

That's a heist film genre. That's how all of them work. You either buy it or you don't, I guess.

 

Karol

 

Exactly. It didn't really interest me in that regard. And I find his editing style of cross-cutting revolting. So for me personally, nothing to engage me. Though I can see how it might interest other people.

[KK 3,307]

8 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

It's about nothing. Just a plot which devolves into a race against the clock thing. Not very interesting for me at all. Especially when it takes half the film to set up in what is almost like a filmed manual to illustrate all these made up concepts.

 

But that's exactly what it is. It isn't trying to be some profound statement on the nature of dreams, the subconscious or existentialist crap (contrary to what some fanboys might suggest). It's just a stylish heist thriller. And it plays that genre very well.

 

10 minutes ago, crocodile said:

"Unique" as in a "it can be only Nolan's film". Unique to him,  if you will.

 

Karol

 

Sure. He has a unique voice, and a unique formula. I'm just wondering how much fuel is left in that, for me personally, at least. As much as I can admire Dunkirk and enjoy it as an experience, I'm not sure I'd be interested in seeing another film like that again. I don't think I have the patience for another typical Nolan/Zimmer third act wrap-up...

 

6 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Week-End A Zuydcoote is better!

 

It certainly looks it! Will have to check it out.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

2 hours ago, KK said:

 

But that's exactly what it is. It isn't trying to be some profound statement on the nature of dreams, the subconscious or existentialist crap (contrary to what some fanboys might suggest). It's just a stylish heist thriller. And it plays that genre very well.

 

Hear, hear!  And, I don't know about others, but as I've said before, I don't have particularly fantabulous dreams unless on drugs.  They're usually just slightly off, slightly strange, and I think Inception captured that very well.

 

2 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

His films absolutely and utterly fail at replicating anything resembling true human experience.

 

Your human experience, perhaps.

 

2 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Week-End A Zuydcoote is better!

 

"Week-End A Zuydcoote is my favorite film."

 

Sorry BB, I don't think it works.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

47 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

"Week-End A Zuydcoote is my favorite film."

 

Sorry BB, I don't think it works.

 

It's just because you're not pronouncing it right!

[Mephariel 451]

10 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The music is excellent at the quiet moments! So "miscast" is not really true. But the action scenes are always too epic, not dramatic enough (Goldsmith also did that wrong with 13th Warrior) and Zimmer should have tried to dive into the ancient sound of the films' settings, but it rings just like modern music with a few instruments from that era.

 

The really annoying thing is that Zimmer scored so many arena fights in Gladiator. It spoils (de-intensifies) the scenes, just like the T-Rex attack wold have been de-intensified with music. It's like he tries making the scenes more dramatic with harsh brasses, although all the scenes would have needed, are the sound effects and a straightforward, realistic impression. Maybe only-percussion would have been an option. A simple brutal attack is best not scored at all.

 

I can't disagree with this more. Gladiator was one of the few movies that demands an epic score. I think your criticism is spot on for Chappie. 

[Quintus 5,399]

It's a bit played out now, but for a good while Gladiator was top five material for me, I rinsed that CD out and even bought the extras disc (waste of money). That score owned its movie and it was fabulous as a standalone listen. 

[publicist 4,643]

It surely was not fabulous as a stand alone listen. Apart from a few good pop-ish cues i find it a chore to sit through. But then, the last thing i would hand over to Zimmer are huge historical epics requiring an overall sense of architecture and the compostional chops to bind that all together musically.

[Obi 404]

Philip Glass was here.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I'll just put this here....

 

https://www.google.co.il/amp/s/needabiggerblog.com/2014/11/15/review-interstellar/amp/

[Quintus 5,399]

4 hours ago, publicist said:

It surely was not fabulous as a stand alone listen. Apart from a few good pop-ish cues i find it a chore to sit through. But then, the last thing i would hand over to Zimmer are huge historical epics requiring an overall sense of architecture and the compostional chops to bind that all together musically.

 

I remember Gladiator gave me hope in Zimmer as a real outside contender to fill in after Williams, same as I regarded Arnold after ID4. But later Zimmer would publically denounce that style of writing for film and my hopes were dashed there. For about a year after I watched Gladiator at the cinema, its soundtrack album practically lived in personal CD player. It was one of the very few albums I considered to be wall to wall goodness, not a skippable track on there. I've largely moved on now though. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This post makes me want to revisit Gladiator.

[Quintus 5,399]

If you listen to it, let me know if it still stands up. I should imagine it's RCP sound is pretty dated now. 

[publicist 4,643]

There is so much bloat (like in all heavy, 'epic' RCP/Zimmers) in between the pretty/attractive themes - these are pretty good if not especially 'deep'. I remember the cue 'Rome is the Light' from the more music album as a highlight i wish there was more of. It's not a nadir but a far way from the intelligent detailed compositions for epics from yesteryear. 

[Quintus 5,399]

Did you not like 'Patricide'? I thought it had a great swords and sandals drama to it, exactly like what one would find in those old Hollywood epics. 

[publicist 4,643]

Nah, Hans writing adagios is not my idea of a good time. Doubly ironic, since i can't stand - as a german - his overbearing teutonic impulses (Wagner, Mahler). 

[Quintus 5,399]

Fair dos. 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Publicist basically just expressed my thoughts on Zimmer scoring historical epics, better than I could ever do.

[Quintus 5,399]

How was his Last Samurai? 

[publicist 4,643]

Better.

[KK 3,307]

The contemplative moments in The Last Samurai are great. The action material, and anything requiring a more full orchestra has dated terribly.

 

I enjoy Gladiator for what it is. It's not exactly Rozsa, but it does a fine job and really helps make half the film. As with many Zimmer scores, I'm sure it hasn't aged very well, but it'll be a nostalgic favourite.

[publicist 4,643]

The waltz is even a potent dramatic idea, but alas, all the heavy stomping kind of negates it. I like the lighter cues, i. e. 'Earth', 'Now We Are Free' etc.

 

Movies like this shouldn't - even against the wishes of directors or the audience - never get a lesser composer than Goldenthal.

[Quintus 5,399]

Zimmer's Gladiator managed to be even more obnoxious than Rozsa in full on barrelling chariot mode, and that's why it was so badass.